INTERPRETATION OF STATUES

CLASS PRESENTATION

B. N. MUTTO & OTHERS Vs. T. K.NANDI

(1979 AIR SC 460)
 FACTS:
The appellant, Shri B. N. Muttoo, Inspector General of Police,
Leased the property to the respondent from 15th September,
1972 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,200/- exclusive of electricity and
water charges. The lease was for the use of the premises for
residential and/or professional purposes only and not for
commercial purposes. The lease agreement was renewed from
time to time and the respondent became a monthly tenant
under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Appellant was retired from the services on 30th November, 1975.
on 9th September passed the government of Delhi passed an
ordinance stated that government servants who owns house in
Delhi should vacate the houses which was allotted by the
government and which granted a right to vacate tenants from
their houses.
 Whosoever violated this provision the government will impose penalty
as prescribed by the ordinance act.
On 9th December government served notice to him. On the same day
the appellant filed the present Suit for eviction of the respondent .
Before institution of this suit, he was filed a eviction suit on the ground
of misuse, subletting.
The respondent filled an application for leave to defend his case before
rent controller, same was refused by him.
Then he (respondent) filled a revision petition before high court.
 Issues
Whether the appellant was government servant or
not, in order to invoke section 14A of Delhi control
act ?
If not, can retired officer can avail the benefits of
section 14A of Delhi rent control act which was
inserted by ordinance, 1975?
Whether this provision is confined to government
servants or any other persons who occupants of
governmental residential house?
Legal provisions

14. Protection of tenant against eviction.

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained
in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the
recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by
and court or Controller in favour of the landlord against
a tenant except grounds which are mentioned under this
section
 14A. Right to recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to
certain persons.
(1) Where a landlord who, being a person in occupation of any
residential premises allotted to him by the Central Government or any
local authority is required, by, or in pursuance of, any general or special
order made by that Government or authority, to vacate such residential
accommodation, or in default, to incur certain obligations, on the
ground that he owns, in the Union territory of Delhi, a residential
accommodation either in his own name or in the name of his wife or
dependent child, there shall accrue, on and from the date of such order,
to such landlord, notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this
Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract
(whether express or implied), custom or usage to the contrary, a right
to recover immediately possession of any premises let out by him:
 HELD BEFORE HIGH COURT

Allowing the tenant's revision, the High Court held that since
the landlord had retired from service On 30thNovember, 1975
before the Ordinance came into force on December 9th 1975,
the tenant was not liable to vacate the premises
independently of his ownership in the Premises in dispute.
Allowing the appeal.
 Supreme court reasoning

Disagreeing with findings of high court supreme court held that the
person as not being confined to government servants for it is seen that
accommodation has been provided by the government not only to
government servants but to others also. In the circumstances, the court
cannot help giving the plain and unambiguous meaning to the section. It
may be that the retired government servants as well as others who are in
occupation of government accommodation may entitled to a special
advantage.
But the purpose of legislation being to enable the government to get
possession of accommodation provided by them by enabling the
allottees to get the immediate possession of the residential
accommodation owned but let out by them( tenants).
 In this case the term government servant is unambiguous and plain.
But lacking clarity, uncertainty in this term . The cardinal rule for the
construction of acts of parliament is that they should be constructed
according to the intention expressed in the acts themselves.
But plain meaning of this provision alone not able to meet the
intention of the law giver.
So every statute must be interpretated ex visceribus actus (within the
four corners of the act) means statute must be read as whole to see the
intention of legislation.
Thank you